Category: Featured, Life & Society Topics: Oppression, Prophet Jesus (Isa) Channel: Opinion Views: 5336
5336
Why do people miss the biggest lessons?
On the eve of Easter Sunday, I began to think about Pontius Pilate, the fifth Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea (26-36 CE).
Was he bamboozled into trying, convicting and crucifying Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Maryam?
Could he be excused? Was his symbolic washing of hands following the dreadful inquisition a true measure of his reluctance and self-proclaimed innocence in this matter?
A person in authority represents an institution. Such jobs are taken willingly, knowingly, eagerly and sanely, and without duress. There are rewards attached, fame, power and wealth. With such positions come duty and responsibility. None can be forced to be a leader.
So, NO, regardless of the circumstances, Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of the Holy Land cannot be excused for this crime against a righteous man. He cannot act in hindsight and claim abjuration of a significant crime and sin while still far short of having abdicated from his prized position as an official standard bearer of peace and justice.
Now, passing through the middle of the 20th century and rolling through the first decade of the new millennium, I find the ominous shadow of Prefect Pontius Pilate alive and well not only in the mind of the Christendom but also in reincarnated practical presence in the Times.
Who has condemned the Palestinians and who is facilitating its ensuing demise? Are the Palestinians not Christians, or one-time Jews and Christians who are now Muslims? Is their heritage so different than that of the Man-who-walked-on-water?
Who condemned the Iraqis and left one million dead or injured and left thousands of others suffocating from cancerous rays of three hundred tons of spent fuel rod shells, the same waste that Nevada would not accept?
Who is now condemning Iran? And who has tried, convicted and is continuing with execution of the sentence? Is that not the new Prefect Perfect Pontius Pilate?
Is it the UN, the EU, the UK, or the US?
People seem never to learn; least of all, in this case, the people who ostensibly commemorate the predicament of Jesus, the son of Maryam. Has fame, power, wealth overtaken their sanity, judgment and a sense of fair play?
Was Pontius Pilate full of himself? Was he incompetent? I wonder! He was certainly fatal to one of the most honored men God sent as a Massiah to the world.
History repeats itself, this time with a twist. The wrong people are playing in the Prefect's role!
*****
Dr. Shafi A. Khaled is a freelance writer. He teaches and does research in Business & Economics.
Category: Featured, Life & Society
Topics: Oppression, Prophet Jesus (Isa) Channel: Opinion
Views: 5336
Topics: Oppression, Prophet Jesus (Isa) Channel: Opinion
Views: 5336
Related Suggestions
Older Comments:
SHAFI KHALED FROM USA said:
Do Muslims write righteously guided as "righteously guided" because it is a tongue in cheek acknowledgment?
I think not.
First of all, not all Muslims do that.
Secondly, those that do, do it based on their English language skill. They are not being sarcastic!
Now, the term - righteously guided - is an adjective which is a direct translation from Arabic. So, people with different writing skills use the quotes as a reference or source indicator.
Well, while it's good to read between the lines, but this is like reading the tea leaves for tomorrow's weather.
As to comparing Akbar with Aurangzeb or anybody else, it is better not to write hypothetically. Numeric evidence would help. Flying about with insinuations, hearsays and innuendos make one a victim of demagogues and turns one into a mini-demagougue even while one may claim oneself to be an atheist.
To prove me wrong, I would challenge one to come up with 5 good things about Islam and Muslims.
Now, to eschew evidence-absent argument, several evidences have been presented already.
The ratio of Hindu-Muslim population in India after 1000 years of direct association.
The spontaneous, free of coercion conversion to Islam in Europe and Americas even after 9-11.
The discrimination in Indian Bengal against Muslims vs. the status of Hindus in India.
The behavior of Jinnah vs. the behavior of Nehru with regard to maintaining a united India.
BTW, check out how India is blocking all major rivers that are flowing through Bangladesh to measure the evidence of the goodwill of the "secularly" ruled India. Now, these double quotes are intended to be satirical.
I think not.
First of all, not all Muslims do that.
Secondly, those that do, do it based on their English language skill. They are not being sarcastic!
Now, the term - righteously guided - is an adjective which is a direct translation from Arabic. So, people with different writing skills use the quotes as a reference or source indicator.
Well, while it's good to read between the lines, but this is like reading the tea leaves for tomorrow's weather.
As to comparing Akbar with Aurangzeb or anybody else, it is better not to write hypothetically. Numeric evidence would help. Flying about with insinuations, hearsays and innuendos make one a victim of demagogues and turns one into a mini-demagougue even while one may claim oneself to be an atheist.
To prove me wrong, I would challenge one to come up with 5 good things about Islam and Muslims.
Now, to eschew evidence-absent argument, several evidences have been presented already.
The ratio of Hindu-Muslim population in India after 1000 years of direct association.
The spontaneous, free of coercion conversion to Islam in Europe and Americas even after 9-11.
The discrimination in Indian Bengal against Muslims vs. the status of Hindus in India.
The behavior of Jinnah vs. the behavior of Nehru with regard to maintaining a united India.
BTW, check out how India is blocking all major rivers that are flowing through Bangladesh to measure the evidence of the goodwill of the "secularly" ruled India. Now, these double quotes are intended to be satirical.
2012-04-19
H,A. FROM YATHRIB said:
To Mr. RC (Romesh chander):
Muslims did NOT want to live with Hindus in India?
- You argument does NOT hold any water. More Muslims in India than in Pakistan today.
Did your Muslim neighbor (Bangladeshi) wanted to live with Pakistanis?
- well, they split, didn't they? So, can't say people split because of religion.
Who is becoming Muslims today?
- It is the Christians and Jews today (MOSTLY) despite 24/7 hate machine spewing hate in the west. So, my arguments will enter the ears of Jews and Christians pretty easily and they will be convinced.
Muslims did NOT want to live with Hindus in India?
- You argument does NOT hold any water. More Muslims in India than in Pakistan today.
Did your Muslim neighbor (Bangladeshi) wanted to live with Pakistanis?
- well, they split, didn't they? So, can't say people split because of religion.
Who is becoming Muslims today?
- It is the Christians and Jews today (MOSTLY) despite 24/7 hate machine spewing hate in the west. So, my arguments will enter the ears of Jews and Christians pretty easily and they will be convinced.
2012-04-18
ROMESH CHANDER FROM USA said:
Note to Shafi:
Simply because one particular ruler at one particular time in one particular place applied laws one way, it cannot be assumed that to be the RULE for the entire Islamic World for all Islamic rulers.
Akbar abolished Jizya in India does not mean that Jizya did not exist in India. One has to study each rule and each time. All rulers after Akabr reapplied Jizya with various rates and various degrees of enforcement, the worst being Aurangzeb. After Aurengzeb Jizya existed but rulers were too weak to collect it.
If one Caliph was pious does not mean all were; actually, most of them were the worst sinners and destroyed their empires. Even, some muslims put "Righteously Guided" caliphs in quotes, implying that there was nothing righteous about them.
Sorry, no straight line projections based on some selective examples, please.
Simply because one particular ruler at one particular time in one particular place applied laws one way, it cannot be assumed that to be the RULE for the entire Islamic World for all Islamic rulers.
Akbar abolished Jizya in India does not mean that Jizya did not exist in India. One has to study each rule and each time. All rulers after Akabr reapplied Jizya with various rates and various degrees of enforcement, the worst being Aurangzeb. After Aurengzeb Jizya existed but rulers were too weak to collect it.
If one Caliph was pious does not mean all were; actually, most of them were the worst sinners and destroyed their empires. Even, some muslims put "Righteously Guided" caliphs in quotes, implying that there was nothing righteous about them.
Sorry, no straight line projections based on some selective examples, please.
2012-04-16
SHAFI KHALED FROM USA said:
Now, converting for avoiding less than 2.5% jizya or for only able-bidoed men would lead to 2.5% zakah on surplus wealth annually.
So, that's not much of an incentive to become Muslim.
So, that's not much of an incentive to become Muslim.
2012-04-16
SHAFI KHALED FROM USA said:
Only Dhimmi (protected or minority) able bodied men were expected to pay jizya for state defense needs because they were not required to fight in self defense. Women, children, elderly and infirm were exempt. The tax rate was less than 2.5% whenever it was imposed. Early Muslims in Egypt who did not want to join in defense paid jizya, too.
Yet, with "jizya" and "slow process", 75% of Indians stayed Hindu after more than 1,000 years of Muslim rule. Forcible conversion, indeed!
No, Muslims did not want to break up India until Gandhi (read Seifert on Jinnah) refused to come to a constitutional understanding on 2-3 occasions while the British were still ruling and were expected to act as neutral. This proposal of the highly-secular, united-India oriented, one-time Congress President, Mohammed Ali Jinnah was repeatedly rebuffed by the Mahatma. Then when the 3-unit federation was accepted as the answer to maintaining a united India, Mr. Nehru, as the new Congress President said in his first press conference that this understanding might go once the British left. Upon hearing this, the immediate past-President of Congress, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, understood the mess the over-eager Nehru had made by revealing his true intent. He called another press conference to deny this.
It is then that break-up of India began under the Muslim League. BTW, the Indian Muslim League opposed the break up of India as did millions of others. These people opted to stay. The "border closing", if there was any, happened after the 1965 War.
The main break up issue the anticipated unfairness under Hindu-ruled India. This was a legitimate fear given what happens to women & 25% or more of low caste Hindus as a part of religion. In fact, in Bangladesh, the 13% Hindus get almost 15% of all employment and academic opportunities. On the contrary, in neighboring Indian Bengal with 25% Muslim citizens, only 2% of such opportunities go to them.
Yet, with "jizya" and "slow process", 75% of Indians stayed Hindu after more than 1,000 years of Muslim rule. Forcible conversion, indeed!
No, Muslims did not want to break up India until Gandhi (read Seifert on Jinnah) refused to come to a constitutional understanding on 2-3 occasions while the British were still ruling and were expected to act as neutral. This proposal of the highly-secular, united-India oriented, one-time Congress President, Mohammed Ali Jinnah was repeatedly rebuffed by the Mahatma. Then when the 3-unit federation was accepted as the answer to maintaining a united India, Mr. Nehru, as the new Congress President said in his first press conference that this understanding might go once the British left. Upon hearing this, the immediate past-President of Congress, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, understood the mess the over-eager Nehru had made by revealing his true intent. He called another press conference to deny this.
It is then that break-up of India began under the Muslim League. BTW, the Indian Muslim League opposed the break up of India as did millions of others. These people opted to stay. The "border closing", if there was any, happened after the 1965 War.
The main break up issue the anticipated unfairness under Hindu-ruled India. This was a legitimate fear given what happens to women & 25% or more of low caste Hindus as a part of religion. In fact, in Bangladesh, the 13% Hindus get almost 15% of all employment and academic opportunities. On the contrary, in neighboring Indian Bengal with 25% Muslim citizens, only 2% of such opportunities go to them.
2012-04-16
ROMESH CHANDER FROM USA said:
Note to HA:
Try pushing that kind of arguments with Christians and Jews and see who do you convince? Nobody. Did muslims argue that with Spain in 1492 when they kicked out all muslims? Self Serving arguments don't go any far. Even Mullahs won't accept these kinds of arguments, because they will be afraid to lose uniqueness of Islam. Hey, it is you muslims, who refused to live with Hindus and ask for a new country; and when you got it, Pakistan closed its borders in about 1949 to stop any more muslims coming into Pakistan. Why separate?
Gandhi was too busy in kicking out Britts than worry about historical events unless they helped in his movement.
I never implied that sword was used to Islamize; it was a slow and steady process of the Islamic Conquests. Why pay higher taxes of Dhimmies when you can become muslim and avoid those taxes. Yes, those taxes acted the "sword' for Islamization.
Try pushing that kind of arguments with Christians and Jews and see who do you convince? Nobody. Did muslims argue that with Spain in 1492 when they kicked out all muslims? Self Serving arguments don't go any far. Even Mullahs won't accept these kinds of arguments, because they will be afraid to lose uniqueness of Islam. Hey, it is you muslims, who refused to live with Hindus and ask for a new country; and when you got it, Pakistan closed its borders in about 1949 to stop any more muslims coming into Pakistan. Why separate?
Gandhi was too busy in kicking out Britts than worry about historical events unless they helped in his movement.
I never implied that sword was used to Islamize; it was a slow and steady process of the Islamic Conquests. Why pay higher taxes of Dhimmies when you can become muslim and avoid those taxes. Yes, those taxes acted the "sword' for Islamization.
2012-04-14
H.A. FROM YATHRIB said:
Sir Romesh Chander (the most devout atheist) does NOT even have basic understanding of Islam. Yet, he commens on all topics, exactly like America's FOXNEWS experts!
Muslims follow the teaching of Jesus (pbuh) so you (Mr. Chander) can't expell Palestinian from Jersualem as you argue. Muslims follow all the prophets from Adam (a:) to prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and also believe that God had sent righteous people (even in India) and guided them to guide others on the striaght path. So, Mr. chander, you can't also expell Muslilms India or anywhere on Earth.
Want to compare imperialism? Did Gandhi ever complained about Arabs coming to India? No, because Islam was NOT spread by sword. Look at West today...is anyone using sword to convert people to Islam? nope! yet, Islam is the fastest growing in the West.
Did Gandhi ever complained about the British empire? Ans: you know answer!
Mr. Chander...you need to seek knowledge! You are lost. You think you know a lot, but actually you do NOT. You are suffering from a the syndrome called "Little Knowledge is a very dangerous thing" syndrome. Exactly the reason you are an atheist!
The signs of God are every where. You need to recharge your batteries and zoom in all your antennas to detect it. God DOES NOT spoon feed anyone anything! God gives you all the ammunitions to do so.
Muslims follow the teaching of Jesus (pbuh) so you (Mr. Chander) can't expell Palestinian from Jersualem as you argue. Muslims follow all the prophets from Adam (a:) to prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and also believe that God had sent righteous people (even in India) and guided them to guide others on the striaght path. So, Mr. chander, you can't also expell Muslilms India or anywhere on Earth.
Want to compare imperialism? Did Gandhi ever complained about Arabs coming to India? No, because Islam was NOT spread by sword. Look at West today...is anyone using sword to convert people to Islam? nope! yet, Islam is the fastest growing in the West.
Did Gandhi ever complained about the British empire? Ans: you know answer!
Mr. Chander...you need to seek knowledge! You are lost. You think you know a lot, but actually you do NOT. You are suffering from a the syndrome called "Little Knowledge is a very dangerous thing" syndrome. Exactly the reason you are an atheist!
The signs of God are every where. You need to recharge your batteries and zoom in all your antennas to detect it. God DOES NOT spoon feed anyone anything! God gives you all the ammunitions to do so.
2012-04-12
ROMESH CHANDER FROM USA said:
Note to Cjacks:
Yopu write "By invading other countries to take resources the west only gained temporary benefit and not enduring benefit. Trying to inject their messed up paradigm, they brought the injection of zionazism upon themselves and this is an enduring disbenefit.".
Ah, what did Islam and Muslims do in the first 100 years or so -- they conquered Arabia (Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia), North Africa and ultimately Spain; as well as parts of Central Asia / Afghanistan / India. Should this not be called Arab Imperialism? Why do muslims never use this term? Is it any different than British, French, Mongol and other imperialisms. Why don't muslims use the term "Ottoman Imperialism", "Mongol Imperialism" in Indian subcontinent. The local populations of those subcontinents never like these kinds of imperialisms and these imperialism created problems which still exist today. Remember all of these were conquests by the sword; Islamization came after conquests (except in Indonesia). And these conquests continued right until the end of the 17th century (and with frequest losses like in Spain).
Why can muslims not be honest in discussions and debates?. Why can they see problems created by others and never by themselves and their own imperialism?
Arab Imperialism -- strange term, but how true. By the way, this term was coined by a muslim -- late Anwar Sheikh (of Pakistan and then of UK).
Yopu write "By invading other countries to take resources the west only gained temporary benefit and not enduring benefit. Trying to inject their messed up paradigm, they brought the injection of zionazism upon themselves and this is an enduring disbenefit.".
Ah, what did Islam and Muslims do in the first 100 years or so -- they conquered Arabia (Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia), North Africa and ultimately Spain; as well as parts of Central Asia / Afghanistan / India. Should this not be called Arab Imperialism? Why do muslims never use this term? Is it any different than British, French, Mongol and other imperialisms. Why don't muslims use the term "Ottoman Imperialism", "Mongol Imperialism" in Indian subcontinent. The local populations of those subcontinents never like these kinds of imperialisms and these imperialism created problems which still exist today. Remember all of these were conquests by the sword; Islamization came after conquests (except in Indonesia). And these conquests continued right until the end of the 17th century (and with frequest losses like in Spain).
Why can muslims not be honest in discussions and debates?. Why can they see problems created by others and never by themselves and their own imperialism?
Arab Imperialism -- strange term, but how true. By the way, this term was coined by a muslim -- late Anwar Sheikh (of Pakistan and then of UK).
2012-04-11
CJACKS FROM USA said:
Mathew 18:18. By invading other countries to take resources the west only gained temporary benefit and not enduring benefit. Trying to inject their messed up paradigm, they brought the injection of zionazism upon themselves and this is an enduring disbenefit. It cannot relieve itself of this curse until it heals the damage it has done to civilizations across the world with ethnic cleansing in the Americas and Palestine, repair the damage of slavery and forced conversions to tritheism, repay the colonial resource grabs and poverty that that engendered, beat its swords into plows and restore the environment. Good luck with that.
Dum Diversas and Romanus Poniticus were the beginning of your undoing, but you embraced and extended that, arrogantly calling your "national interest" the "civilizing of the salvages". Where are those that worshiped that which Jesus worshiped as Jesus exemplified? What I see is the antithesis of that. Who were the civilized and who were the salvages?
Dum Diversas and Romanus Poniticus were the beginning of your undoing, but you embraced and extended that, arrogantly calling your "national interest" the "civilizing of the salvages". Where are those that worshiped that which Jesus worshiped as Jesus exemplified? What I see is the antithesis of that. Who were the civilized and who were the salvages?
2012-04-10
ROMESH CHANDER FROM USA said:
Mecca, the birth place of Mohammed belongs to the Muslim world; no non-muslims are allowed to visit there, not to talk of living there. Same story with Medina.
By the same argument, Palestine, the land of birth place of Jesus, and crucifixtion of Jesus should belong to the Christian world; and no non-muslims should be allowed there. Just as non-muslims in Mecca / Medina converted to Islam or were forced to leave, in the same manner, non-muslims in Palestine in 1918 should have been asked to convert to Christianity or leave. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Can or should the Christian world reclaim Palestine, forcibly if necessary?
Hey, I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew, never have been and will never be. Just a logical argument for muslims to chew on. Unfortunately, logic in this part of the world does not work, just emotionalism.
By the same argument, Palestine, the land of birth place of Jesus, and crucifixtion of Jesus should belong to the Christian world; and no non-muslims should be allowed there. Just as non-muslims in Mecca / Medina converted to Islam or were forced to leave, in the same manner, non-muslims in Palestine in 1918 should have been asked to convert to Christianity or leave. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Can or should the Christian world reclaim Palestine, forcibly if necessary?
Hey, I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew, never have been and will never be. Just a logical argument for muslims to chew on. Unfortunately, logic in this part of the world does not work, just emotionalism.
2012-04-10
ABDULHAQUE FROM UNITED STATES said:
I agree with writer. I would directly address his thoughts. It is
Rome again. Again stupid zionist are used as front just as in
history they are blamed for murder of Christ. Nothing has changed.
Again it is slavery of common man and woman. Enticing them to
materialism in disguise of individual freedom to inciting him or her
against his or her family, destroying institution of marraige an age
old protection for week and persecuted. Look at hollywood, temple of
Jupitor, the Roman God which provides morality in name of Christ who
has been mad God that no body has to follow.
The Rome will never allow rise of Islam and that is why Iran is
target for destruction. Islam is last man standing against Rome. If
institution of marraige and family succeed where they will get all
there freedom loving robotic slaves. Of course with Rome are creator
of the Golden Cow, the Zionist. That is why prophet Jesus will have
to come back
Rome again. Again stupid zionist are used as front just as in
history they are blamed for murder of Christ. Nothing has changed.
Again it is slavery of common man and woman. Enticing them to
materialism in disguise of individual freedom to inciting him or her
against his or her family, destroying institution of marraige an age
old protection for week and persecuted. Look at hollywood, temple of
Jupitor, the Roman God which provides morality in name of Christ who
has been mad God that no body has to follow.
The Rome will never allow rise of Islam and that is why Iran is
target for destruction. Islam is last man standing against Rome. If
institution of marraige and family succeed where they will get all
there freedom loving robotic slaves. Of course with Rome are creator
of the Golden Cow, the Zionist. That is why prophet Jesus will have
to come back
2012-04-10
